Re: tlb_gather_mmu() and semantics of "fullmm"

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 22:57 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> Good point.
> 
> Maybe it would work out correctly if I used current->mm?
> 
> Because if I tested it that way, only something really executing
> in userland could force the cpumask bit clears.
> 
> Any kernel thread would flush the TLB if and when it switched
> back into a real task using that mm.
> 
> Sound good?

/me thinks (not as late here but I'm getting tired regardless ;-)

So if you test current->mm, you effectively account for mm_users == 1,
so the only way the mm can be active on another processor is as a lazy
mm for a kernel thread. So your test should work properly as long
as you don't have a HW that will do speculative TLB reloads into the
TLB on that other CPU (and even if you do, you flush-on-switch-in should
get rid of any crap here).

Ben.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>